Jubilee

[gregorach]

I have a dim recollection that there are some quite substantial powers still vested in the Crown. For example, the armed forces have her as their commander-in-chief, not the PM of the day. The logic being, I understand, that in the event the PM orders the army to attack the populace they can simply disobey on the say so of the monarch.

Funnily enough, I don't find the notion that an unelected hereditary elite could theoretically overthrow the democratically elected government of this country at the drop of a hat entirely reassuring. Why should I trust them any more than the government?

First Reply deleted.

:0) Cheer up Dunc.

I'm perfectly cheery, thanks. I'm just not cheering for my hereditary feudal overlords.

[boboff]

You are though talking a complete load of twaddle though.

"Heritary Feudal Overlords" Sake! what a complete and utter load of rubbish.

Yeah we get it you don't like the Queen, or authority or anything that remotely meets with the established view on Political, Moral or Religous ethos, you have read about it, can argue about it from a mighty intelligent view point, you can chastise those with money or wealth or influence, for being in someway wrong to have it, yes you can, because it's a democracy, so if we agree to Keep Dunc, can we keep the Queen?

[Gra]

I am completely amazed that so many people who are into self-sufficiency can support royalty. Is it not a contradiction in terms? Or does self-sufficiency include stealing for yourself. The royals and their flunkies throughout Europe got their positions through war and theft. Remember the ownership of the overwhelming majority of the land in this country by a tiny minority is virtually unchanged since the Norman conquest and the appropriation of the land by the Norman King and his Dukes. This simple fact prevents many ishers from realising their dreams. Having an expensive 'celebration' for these thieves seems like poor compensation for a real party.

[gregorach]

"Heritary Feudal Overlords" Sake! what a complete and utter load of rubbish.

I live in Scotland, mate. Land ownership up here still is basically feudal - most of the country (something like 96%, if memory serves) is owned, lock stock and barrel, by a handful of toffs, simply because they happen to have been born into the right families. Feu duty was only abolished here in the year 2000.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

On the plus side I suppose it does illustrate what staying active can do for life expectency: Brenda & Phil are 86 & 91 (?) respectively and yet they are still pretty steady on their pins and proud owners of a more-or-less complete set of marbles. I've suspected for a while that retirement was overated and shall be doing all I can to avoid it with a plan to die in harness at the age of 94 after a particularly ferocious lunch.

[boboff]

I thought it was Terry Wogan who owned Scotland?

(This statement is more true that at first it would appear, back when you could get tax relief by investing in Scotish Woodland, he bought loads and loads of it)

Anyway, it's not important, it is what we are stuck with, and I am not up for the Revolution just yet.

As for the notion that you can't aspire to Self Sufficiency and accept that we have a society where some people have more than others, well, it's too laughable to even contemplate, as for the land ownership not changing since Norman Times, this is all just utter Ubber nonsence. Ishers not realising there dreams has NOTHING to do with land ownership history or people "stealing" there right to own land.

I live near Kit Hill, a wonderfull mining and important landscape feature of the SE of Cornwall, it was given to the people in the late 1960's by * Cough, Prince Charles.... Now it's enjoyed by Tennant Farmers, Walkers, Ramblers, Birds insects and people who like to fly kites, and people who like carrying little bags of Dog Poo round with them. Yes the Duchy of Cornwall own allot of land, so do the National Trust, but I would rather have Charles as a landlord than the National Trust, Tennant farms on Dartmoor for example are a BRILLIANT place to start for any of the Ish Dreamers who are so callously treated, it would require really hard work, and no gaurantee of success mind, so that would probably put them off.

Still better to think that there Birthright has somehow been stolen, rather than admit they can't pull their bloody fingers out and graft for their dreams like the rest of us.

[gregorach]

Still better to think that there Birthright has somehow been stolen, rather than admit they can't pull their bloody fingers out and graft for their dreams like the rest of us.

That's pretty much precisely my problem - the royals (and all their hangers-on) don't graft like the rest of us. They enjoy luxury and wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, simply because of the arbitrary conditions of their birth. And yet apparently it's the people who object to this state of affairs who want something handed to them on a plate? Yeah, right.... Pull the other one, it plays "God Save the Queen". (Including the controversial sixth verse about coming up here "Rebellious Scots to crush"...)

[boboff]

Yeah you have a point.

But what I was objecting to was the fact that people CANT get what they want through hard work, they can.

The fact they were born to money, it's not wrong, it's just rubbish we wern't!

[chickenchargrill]

Lalala...

Well I thought the celebrations were lovely. Local Big Jubilee Lunch was thoroughly disappointing and was used as an excuse to give out free copies of the Qu'ran and New Testament, as well as ask people what they thought about our area. AND the food stalls had run out So we had a floor picnic at home, watched some of the celebrations and the Prince Charles thing, waved some flags and such.

As MKG said right of the start, before all the arguing started

Well done, old Queenie!!!! Any 86-year old who elects to show reciprocal respect and stand throughout all of that deserves my admiration.

Here, here!

[gregorach]

Yeah you have a point.

Who are you, and what have you done with the real boboff?

[MKG]

Deary me!

a) The Scots have always been rebellious (it's what being Scottish is about), even when a Scottish king succeeded to the English throne. I don't see too many people nowadays trying to bring them to destruction (with the exception of bloody Salmond). My great-grandfather was a McLeod, by the way.

b) Accidents of birth happen, to one degree or another. Unless we want a drab, boring, mindless, cesspit of a society.

c) Queenie does bring in an awful lot of money - far more than she costs. I can't argue about the hangers-on, though, although Andrew and his daughters have just been put fairly and squarely in their place - so things are improving.

d) If you believe that the Queen has any real power at all to override the wishes of a democratically-elected government, you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

e) I note that an awful lot of citizens of the US - a republic if ever there was one - quite like the idea of a monarch.

f) Party-poopers get my goat.

g) I live in a village which was, until the 1920s, wholly owned by minor aristocracy. Now it isn't. And, as Dunc says, Scottish feu duties have been abolished.

I'm all for reducing the unearned birthrights of a dwindling number of people. But that's a process which is active now. A revolution would speed things up, but why bother? Change in Britain has almost always been incremental and, therefore, lasting. We got rid of a monarch once pretty sharpish (see what I did there?) but then reinstated the monarchy just as quickly.

Is there a law which states that the TITULAR, rather than executive, head of a republic must be elected?

Mike

[boboff]

Well, I don't see it as wrong to believe someone has more than you and it's "not fair" That is a valid opinion, but it doesn't get you anywhere, I spent much of my teens feeling the same way.

Anyway, as chicken & MKG said, good on you Your Majesty. I am enjoying the weekend, I have my Mums copy of the Coronation Book here, which my Great Grandmother gave to her when she was 3, my Son took it to school, it was a piece of my family history, written in 59 years ago by a wonderfull woman who died 30 years ago, having been in Service below stairs in Scotland, and who even when she had a leg amputated would sit and let me ride on her chair that went up and down on a switch, and give me a hug, and smile. The fact the book is for sale for £5 on ebay (yes I checked!) doesn't matter.

[MKG]

Well, I don't see it as wrong to believe someone has more than you and it's "not fair".

Depends what you mean, boboff. If you're born poor and boboff2 down the road is born rich because Daddy owns the land on which boboff1 lives, then I take your point. But too many people think it means that anyone with more than boboff1 is a snotty, priveleged yahoo.

Some people work hard and achieve more. Some people can't be bothered to get off their collective arse. Which is, I think, what you're actually saying.

Mike

[gregorach]

Is there a law which states that the TITULAR, rather than executive, head of a republic must be elected?

No. My preferred option (well, short of actual anarchy) is for a non-executive head of state. Actually, I don't even really mind if people really want to keep the monarchy for that (although I'd prefer to get rid of the whole concept of hereditary nobility), as long as we stop giving them tens of millions of pounds a year and redistribute their extensive land holdings. (I suspect the latter point would happen fairly naturally if we (a) stopped subsidising their vast estates through CAP subsidies, and (b) instituted a Land Value Tax.)

[MKG]

And I just about agree with you, Dunc. You see, you and I could live in an anarchy and be perfectly friendly and cooperative - apart from my occasional forays against your border posts. Someone would come along, though, and ruin the relationship by deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of anarchy.

Mike